Statistically sharp double-edged opening
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/statistically-sharp-openings
ev=-0.03 (statistical, chesstempo database, 2200+ vs 2200+). 
sokolsky opening - reliability
Sort:
the question for me is : what appeals to you with 1.b4?
Why not developping "normally" with 1.e4 or 1.d4?
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/what-is-the-best-defense-against-1-b4
tescik wrote:
Whats general opinion on Sokolsky opening?
Its not popular among GMs those days, but is it solid opening?
I am looking for something with a lot of tactical opportunities.
As one that has played this about 250 times as White over the board, and now only plays it occasionally (maybe once or twice a year), I can tell you that "sharp" is not what you get in this opening.
After 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Nf6 4.c4, you get a very sharp and wild game, full of tactics.
But it ends there!
After 1.b4 d5 or 1.b4 Nf6 or 1.b4 e6, you end up with a very positional game with massive queenside expansion. Typically White will play moves like 2.Bb2 followed by e3, Nf3, Be2, O-O, etc, with b5 played the first moment the pawn is threatened. (After 1.b4 e6, it is not threatened because 2.Bb2 Bxb4? 3.Bxg7 wins the Rook) Then moves like c4 and/or a4. Think of the London System. It's a stodgy opening where White tries to maintain the strong point of e5. Well, for the Sokolsky, that's b5 rather than e5. The idea is to make matters difficult for Black to get his queenside pieces out. The Knight can only go to d7, which will block in the Bishop, or if the Bishop comes out first, can block the Bishop's escape and might force Black to surrender the Bishop pair, etc. If he can't get the minor pieces out, then the Rook will be stuck there too.
After 1.b4 c6, again you get a positional game, but a different flavor. Instead of the strongpoint on b5, it's 2.Bb2 Qb6 3.a3 a5 4.c4! axb4 5.c5 Qc7 6.axb4 Rxa1 7.Bxa1 where now it's a fight for control of c5 (Black will break with his pawns) and d4 along with a race to the open a-file. Very few tactics here as well.
There is no opening where you can force tactical or positional positions and expect to survive. Two players dictate the pace of the game, not one!
1.b4 has one line full of tactics, and is otherwise a stodgy, positional struggle!
1b4! is damn aggressive. I play it sometimes in bullet games to intimidate my opponents. Some times I win, others I lose...
THX guys
the question for me is : what appeals to you with 1.b4?
Why not developping "normally" with 1.e4 or 1.d4?
I am looking for openings that gives some opportunities for heavily tactical game. I barely know any openings theory, I have been playing d4 and french/d5 with black my whole life. I do not have time or motivation to learn many variations, so I am looking for opening that would be problematic for oponent and that would give some chance for tactical play because thats why I enjoy the most in chess.
Playing non standard openings hoping tactics is the best way to achieve bad positions and losing quickly...
Really, this approach is not good in my opinion.
Sorry but chess needs some efforts.
If you want to play something unusual yet reliable, then 1.b3 is much better bet. It does not fight for advantage, but still has potential for attacking games. Against 1...d5 you get reversed Nimzo-Indian/Bogo-Indian, sometimes mangling opponent's queenside pawns, sometimes switchind to Bird's opening and initiating pawn storm on the kingside. Against 1...e5 it's either inverted Sicilian or crazy stuff like 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5?! 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.f4 f6?! 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qh4 exf4 8.Nf3!
Every opening has opportunities. Whether you can use them depends on your opponents' playing style.
poucin wrote:
Playing non standard openings hoping tactics is the best way to achieve bad positions and losing quickly...
Really, this approach is not good in my opinion.
Sorry but chess needs some efforts.
100% agree. There is no good reason to play inferior openings. There is no shortage of tactics in mainstream, sound openings. If you want to play aggressive, tactical chess, there are plenty of opportunities for that for both sides in a lot of e4 and d4 openings. 1.b4?! is not "problematic for the opponent". Openings like this allow your opponent to get a better game with black straight out of the opening without needing any theory, just by playing chess.
3 masters in one forum. I wish it could have been 4.
Maybe Richard Rapport will chime in to say even he wouldn't play 1.b4. 
Whats general opinion on Sokolsky opening?
Its not popular among GMs those days, but is it solid opening?
I am looking for something with a lot of tactical opportunities.